On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Steve Kargl <s...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 07:46:37PM +0100, Toon Moene wrote: > > > > I agree about the bisecting-in-case-of-bugs issue. > > > > However, what I see happening in practice is that all GCC developers > > keep on doing their development work on branches - only the gfortran > > developers are left out, because they do not have a branch. > > > > Of course we can create branches for all the subprojects that are > > pending on the creation of a 4.4 branch and freeing up trunk - it just > > doesn't seem very efficient to us. > > > > Of course I pleaded with the FSF (on the Steering Committee mailing list > > *and* the gcc list) for speed in the case of the 4.4 branch - in vain. > > > > We might be heading for a fork a la the EGCS fork - and I don't like it. > > It took a lot of effort (I was part of the EGCS cabal and I didn't > > even do a lot of that foot-work). > > > > "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." > George Santayana > > http://home.schmorp.de/egcs.html > > Why are we doing this? It's become increasingly clear in the course > of hacking events that the FSF's needs for gcc2 are at odds with the > objectives of many in the community who have done lots of hacking and > improvment over the years. GCC is part of the FSF's publicity for the > GNU project, as well as being the GNU system's compiler, so stability > is paramount for them. On the other hand, Cygnus, the Linux folks, > the pgcc folks, the Fortran folks and many others have done > development work which has not yet gone into the GCC2 tree despite > years of efforts to make it possible. > > This can be amended by replacing "so stability is paramount for them" > with "so utopian philosophical pander is paramount for them" > > -- > Steve
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2009-03/msg00439.html
